INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LA SIERRA METROLINK PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT

Transcription

1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LA SIERRA METROLINK PARKING LOT EPANSION PROJECT Prepared By: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California March 2016

2

3 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. A detailed project description is provided in Section 2.0. This document is an Initial Study that provides an evaluation of environmental impacts potentially resulting from the implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following: To provide RCTC with information needed to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Report (EIR), Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Negative Declaration for a project; To facilitate the project s environmental assessment early in the design and development of a project; To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and To determine the nature and extent of any new impacts associated with the proposed project. 1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS As defined by Section of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining the nature and extent of any required environmental analysis and review. According to Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. The proposal has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposal has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. According to Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the environment. According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a proposal could result in a significant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to insignificant levels. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. 1

4 This Initial Study and Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section et. seq.); Section of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of RCTC; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law. RCTC is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for the project. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to responsible agencies and will be made available to the public for review and comment. A 30-day public review period will be provided to allow these entities and other interested parties to comment on the proposed project and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Riverside General Plan and zoning code provides comprehensive policies and strategies intended to guide long-term development within the City. The General Plan outlines development policies, objectives, and land use designations. It specifies zoning applicable to properties within the City and directs the creation and implementation of municipal standards and plans. While RCTC is exempt from local land use policies under state law, aspects of local plans, policies, and zoning ordinances are reviewed in this analysis for informational purposes. 1.3 USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is an informational document which is intended to inform RCTC decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. In its capacity as the Lead Agency, RCTC has determined that this Initial Study will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review and comment. Comments received on the document will be taken into consideration by RCTC as part of their decision making process for the proposed project. 1.4 CONTENTS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental impacts of the proposed project. The following annotated outline summarizes the contents of this Initial Study. Section 1 Introduction, provides the procedural context surrounding this Initial Study s preparation and insight into its composition. Section 2 Project Description, provides an overview of the proposed project. Section 3 Environmental Checklist, presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those issue areas that would have either a significant impact, potentially significant impact, or no impact. Section 4 Environmental Analysis, evaluates each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is 2

5 discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis as necessary. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. Section 5 Mandatory Findings of Significance (presented in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines). Section 6 Persons and Organizations Consulted, identifies those persons consulted and involved in preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 7 References, lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. 1.5 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. s and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: No : A No response is adequately supported if the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. Less Than : The proposed project will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than significant; no additional analysis is required. Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a Less Than. Potentially : The proposed project could have impacts that are considered significant. Additional analyses and possibly an EIR could be required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 1.6 TIERED DOCUMENTS AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on incorporation by reference of tiered documentation, which are discussed in the following section. As permitted in Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, information and discussions from other documents can be included into this document. Tiering is defined as follows: Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as the one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages redundant analyses, as follows: Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including the general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. 3

6 This approach can eliminate repetitive discussion of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration. Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. 1.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). This document incorporates by reference appropriate information from the following documents: Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside Community Development Department, November Final Program Environmental Report for the City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents, Albert A. Webb Associates, November

7 SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. Table 1 provides existing City of Riverside General Plan land use designations for the site and adjacent properties and Figure 1 provides the regional location of the project. Table 1: Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations Proximity to Site Existing Land Use General Plan Designation 1 On-site Vacant land Mixed Use Urban (MU-U) North South Existing BNSF rail line and State Route 91 (SR- 91) Single Family Residential (Riverwalk Vista development) Rail/Freeway Medium Density Residential (MDR) East AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes Commercial (C) West La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking lot Mixed Use Urban (MU-U) Notes: 1 Figure LU-10 Land Use Policy Map, City of Riverside General Plan 2015 The project site is currently a vacant field. Elevation within the project site ranges from 744 to 752 above mean sea level (AMSL). There is an existing mound of soil located on the southern most portion of the site that would be utilized to bring the site s elevation to match the adjacent parking lot s elevation. The study area (shown in Figure 2), includes the project site and also includes the adjacent drive aisle of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. As identified in Figure 3 (Conceptual Site Plan), with the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Additional work/features include: Site grading; Asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping; Curb and gutter; Concrete planter curbs; Wrought iron fencing; Landscaping and irrigation; LED marquee lighting; Storm drain facilities; Benches and trash receptacles; Information kiosk; and, 5

8 Restroom facility for use by RTA and site security personnel Construction of the project is anticipated to take approximately 32 weeks. Grading, asphalt and concrete placement will require 18 weeks of construction. The project site would require about 29,746 cubic yards of fill, 30,479 cubic yards of cut and 733 cubic yards of export to bring the site elevation to the same level as the adjacent parking lot. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed along Indiana Avenue frontage and within the parking lot. Concrete curb stops are proposed at the end of each row of parking spaces. Sidewalks would be provided for pedestrians walking to and from the proposed bus bays. A new driveway approach would be constructed at the northeastern most corner of the site and would wrap along the project site s eastern and northern boundary to connect to the proposed bus bays. Buses accessing the site would do so through one of two ingress points along Indiana Avenue and would exit the site via the to be signalized existing La Sierra Station/Indiana Avenue intersection. A wrought iron fence would be installed along the northern most boundary of the site to provide separation between the existing rail tracks and the proposed bus shelter areas; and the southernmost boundary along Indiana Avenue. 2.3 OVERVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The proposed project requires the following discretionary approvals from the RCTC: Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Other permits will be required as part of the project s approval including a Construction Stormwater Permit (Regional Water Quality Control Board) and Grading Permit (City of Riverside) among others. 6

9 SECTION 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Riverside County Transportation Commission; 4080 Lemon Street; Riverside, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: Patricia Castillo, Capital Projects Manager (951) Project Location: The project is located near the intersection of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street in the City of Riverside adjacent to the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project area is located in Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 6 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series Riverside West, California quadrangle. 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3 rd Floor, Riverside, California General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Urban (MU-U). 7. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R ). 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station with supporting infrastructure and features (curb and gutter, planter curbs, fencing, landscaping and irrigation, lighting, benches, information kiosk, and a restroom facility). With the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Refer to Section 2 for a detailed project description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) City of Riverside 7

10

11 3.4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The environmental analysis in Section 3.0 of this Initial Study indicates that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts. The Initial Study Checklist, provide below and on the following pages, summarizes the findings of the environmental analysis. Issues Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 9

12 Issues Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the 10

13 Issues California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 11

14 Issues risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 12

15 Issues Potentially materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 13

16 Issues Potentially would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 14

17 Issues b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? I. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? II. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 15

18 Issues Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? IV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? V. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account 16

19 Issues Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including buy not limited to intersections, street, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? VII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing 17

20 Issues entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No 18

21 SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. As previously stated, while RCTC is exempt from local land use policies under state law, aspects of local plans, policies, and zoning ordinances are reviewed in this analysis for informational purposes. 4.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No. The project site and the surrounding area are not identified in the City of Riverside s General Plan as an area of scenic importance. 1 The proposed project site is currently undeveloped land; however, the project site is located north of an existing housing development and south of the existing BNSF rail line and State Route 91 (SR-91). The construction of the project would not impede or obstruct views of a scenic vista, as there are no components of the project, such as buildings or structures that are large, or of a mass and scale that would impact views. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No. There are no significant scenic resources on the project site. In addition, there are no eligible or officially designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. 2 Because the project site does not have any designated scenic resources (e.g. trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings) and is not near any scenic highways, the project would not result in any impacts to scenic resources related to a scenic highway. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project site is surrounded by urban uses that include an existing residential development, commercial uses, and the existing BNSF rail line and SR-91. The proposed project site is located within disturbed vacant land, mostly void of any vegetation. The expansion of the existing parking lot would not include project components that would obstruct the background views of the mountains or include removal of significant amount of vegetation. The City of Riverside General Plan designates several roadways as Scenic Boulevards and Parkways in order to protect scenic resources and enhance the visual character of Riverside. While the proposed project will not be constructed along the La Sierra Avenue 1 Open Space and Conservation Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November Riverside County Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, site accessed November 2,

22 frontage, it will be in close proximity to La Sierra Avenue, which is designated as a Scenic/Special Boulevard/Parkway within the City s General Plan. 3 The proposed project would be designed to comply with the applicable design policies contained in the Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. These applicable policies include the provision of signage, street lighting such as street lamps that reflect a human scale and landscaping in the form of street trees, planters, and pots in the public parkway. As previously stated, RCTC plans on including signage, landscaping and lighting for safety and the project is consistent and compatible with the existing development of the surrounding area. The aesthetic view of the proposed built environment will be consistent with the Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. 4 Therefore, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. No impacts are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than. The proposed project would involve the introduction of new lighting typically associated with parking lots. This lighting would be similar to that which exists in the adjacent parking lot and surrounding area and would not be considered significant. As previously mentioned above, the proposed project would include lighting for the project that would be consistent with applicable Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. These lighting guidelines will ensure that impacts from lighting remain less than significant. There are no project components that would generate glare within the project. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No. According to the Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland map data, the project area is identified as Farmland of Local Importance. 5 However, the project site is not utilized for agricultural production and is surrounded on all sides by urban development. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance since 3 Figure CCM-4: Master Plan of Roadways, Circulation and Community Mobility Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November Riverside City Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines, City of Riverside, Resolution No , adopted November Figure 5.2-1: Designated Farmland, City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents EIR, Section 5.2 Agricultural Resources, Albert A. Webb Associates, November

23 the site does not contain these designated farmlands. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No. The project site is not identified as being within a Williamson Act contract. 6 In addition, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of MU-U (Mixed Use Urban) 7 and is zoned as R (Single-family Residential Zone). 8 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, nor would it conflict with lands subject to a Williamson Act contract. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No. The project site does not contain forest lands or timberland and it is not zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland production zones. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No. The project site does not contain any forest lands as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); therefore, the project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. In addition, the Project is not located in the vicinity of offsite forest resources. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? No. The proposed project would not result in conversion of important farmland or forest land, or conversion of other agricultural or forestry resources to a non-agricultural or non-forest use since no agricultural or forest land is located within the project vicinity. The project is consistent with City s General Plan 2025 policies related to agricultural preservation including those enforcing Proposition R and Measure C. Specifically, the proposed project does not involve increased access to the agricultural land through the construction of new roads and does not involve expansion of a residential neighborhood adjacent to or into agricultural or forest areas. Due to the limited scope and intensity of the project, the proposed project would allow for continued use of the existing farmland elsewhere in the City in a manner that will ensure the viability and sustainability of the existing agricultural/crop production. Therefore, no impacts are identified and no mitigation is required. 6 Figure Williamson Act Preserves, City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents EIR, Section 5.2 Agricultural Resources, Albert A. Webb Associates, November Figure LU-10: Land Use Policy Map, Land Use Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November Zoning Map of the City of Riverside, City of Riverside,

24 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No. The air quality plans relevant to the project are the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). The SIP includes strategies and tactics, called RAQS, to be used to attain and maintain acceptable air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Consistency with the RAQS is typically determined by two standards. The first standard is whether the project would exceed assumptions in the RAQS. The second standard is whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or interim reductions as specified in the RAQS. The RAQS relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the region, to forecast future emissions and then determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB mobile source emissions projections and the SCAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle use trends, local general plans, and other application land use plans. For the project, the City of Riverside General Plan is the document governing future land use within the project area. The City of Riverside General Plan was considered as part of SCAG s projections and incorporated into the Regional Growth Management Plan, which provide data for the formulation and development of the RAQS and SIP. A project would be considered inconsistent with air quality plans if it increased population and/or employment growth that would exceed estimates used to develop applicable air quality plans. These exceedances would generate emissions greater than projected regional emission budgets. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated to determine consistency with the land use designation and growth anticipated in the area. The purpose of the proposed project is to expand an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project would support alternative modes of transportation and would result in a less intensive land use than what is currently envisioned in the City s General Plan. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in population in the area and the project is not expected to result in any increase in long-term regional air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project contains no elements that would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans. No impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. 22

25 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than. Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur. Constructionrelated activities would result in the temporary generation of emissions from limited grading and the installation of drains, paving, landscaping, and other site improvements. There will be limited emissions associated with construction worker trips. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with construction activities. A SCAQMD CalEEMod computer model analyzed both short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) impacts associated with the project. The results of the air quality monitoring determined that the proposed project would result in the following emission levels: Table 2: Peak Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Activity ROG NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Grading Paving Fence/Lighting/Painting Total Construction Emissions SCAQMD Emission Thresholds Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Table 3: Peak Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Mobile (Riders) Architectural Coating Landscaping/Maintenance Total Operational Emissions SCAQMD Emission Thresholds Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No The above tables compare the anticipated project emissions (short-term and long-term) to the SCAQMD daily thresholds. As identified in Tables 2 and 3, construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all regulatory requirements including compliance with SCAQMD recommended practices for construction activity. Therefore, a less than significant impact associated with the construction and operation emissions would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 23

26 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than. Refer to Checklist Response 4.3(b). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities (schools, hospitals) or land uses (residential neighborhoods) that include members of the population (children, elderly, and people with illnesses) that are particularly sensitive to effects of air pollutants. As summarized in Tables 2 and 3, no substantial air pollutant emissions would be generated during construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. s are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than. The ARB s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook identifies a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations. Construction associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in minor amounts of odor compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust. However, these odors would be limited to the time that construction equipment is operating during the construction period of the project. All construction equipment is required to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s specifications and all construction equipment is turned off when not in use. These activities would be short term and are not likely to result in nuisance odors that would affect surrounding uses. Upon completion of the project s construction, the temporary sources of diesel exhaust would cease. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of the field survey work conducted for the proposed project, no State or Federal Threatened or 24

27 Endangered plant or animal species were identified as having the potential to occur within the project site. One wildlife species of special concern has a potential to occur within the project site based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). A focused burrowing owl survey was conducted according to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions in August Several small mammal burrows were found in the southern half of the survey area, with some near the center of the project site of a large enough diameter to support burrowing owl. However, the openings of these larger burrows were covered with cobwebs, indicating that the burrows were inactive. In addition, no burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs (e.g. whitewash, pellets, scat, tracks, and/or feathers) were observed within the survey area during the 2015 focused surveys. 9 Although no burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs were observed, the burrowing owl is a highly mobile species that has the potential to subsequently occupy any suitable burrows within the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-01 would provide measures (e.g. confirmation of no burrowing owls being present at the site, avoidance of active nests until after breeding season, active relocation). Through implementation of BIO-01, the project would avoid the take of active BUOW nests or BUOW prior to and during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-01 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Although no raptors were observed during the site visit, eucalyptus and palm trees provide roosting and nesting habitat for raptors, such as hawks and owls, among other resident and migratory bird species. The proposed project site supports foraging and nesting habitat for raptors and other avian species. In order to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing should be scheduled outside of the nesting season (March 15 to August 15). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-02 (which requires construction to occur outside of the bird breeding season) would reduce impacts to migratory breeding birds to a less than significant level. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game [Wildlife] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than. As required under the MSHCP, a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biologist was prepared for the project. The habitat assessment finds the proposed project complies with the requirements of the Western Riverside MSHCP. 10 The project site does not contain any areas that meet the MSHCP definition of Riparian/Riverine areas. In addition, the project site is not located within any MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Areas (NEPSSA) or Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA). The project site contains only non-native grassland and disturbed/developed areas, neither of which are considered sensitive or of special concern to the CDFW or USFWS. The project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Cells, MSHCP Core or Linkage areas, and is not adjacent to any lands within or proposed for inclusion within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The project site does contain marginally suitable habitat for Stephen s Kangaroo Rat in the form of non-native grassland, however, the site is not likely to support this species due to the site s isolation from other areas of potential habitat. The project site is also within the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area. The City of Riverside 9 MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR, Inc., August MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR, Inc., August

28 requires the payment of the required SKR Preservation development fee ($500 per gross acre of parcels proposed for development) prior to issuance of a grading permit per Riverside Municipal Code The establishment of this fee is for all applicants within the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area who cannot satisfy mitigation requirements through on-site mitigation. SKR HCP fees collected are utilized to purchase or support more suitable habitat for the SKR. Payment of the SKR HCP fee would ensure consistency with the requirements of the SKR HCP and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No. The project site is located within an urban built-up area and has a long history of severe disturbance such that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 401 or 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No. Wildlife movement corridors, also called dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are linear features primarily connecting at least two substantial habitat areas. Wildlife corridors and linkages are important features in the landscape, and the viability and quality of a corridor or linkage are dependent upon site-specific factors. The project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Cells, Cores, or Linkages. In addition, the project site is not used as a migratory wildlife corridor, nor does it qualify for use as a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No. As identified in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the requirements and policies identified in the Western Riverside MSHCP. 11 Any project within the City of Riverside s boundaries that proposes planting a street tree within a City right-of-way must follow the Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual. The Manual documents guidelines for the planting, pruning, preservation, and removal of all trees in City rights-of-way. The specifications in the Manual are based on national standards for tree care established by the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Arborists Association, and the American National Standards Institute. In the event that the proposed project requires the planting of a street tree within a City right-of-way, the proposed project would be in compliance with the Tree Policy Manual. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 11 MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR, Inc., August

29 biological resources. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No. Refer to Checklist Response 4.4 e. MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-01 BIO-02 A pre-construction survey for BUOW should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30-days prior to vegetation clearing/grading. If BUOW are found on-site during the reconstruction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of active BUOW nests and MSHCP conservation requirements with regards to BUOW are met. A pre-construction survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to vegetation clearing/grading, if vegetation clearing/grading occurs during the nesting season (March 15 August 15). If nesting birds protected under the MBTA are found onsite during the preconstruction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of protected active nests. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated. Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or structure may be historically significant if it is locally protected through a local general plan or historic preservation ordinance. The State of California, through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), also maintains an inventory of those sites and structures that are considered to be historically significant known as the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Finally, the U.S. Department of Interior has established specific guidelines and criteria that indicates the manner in which a site, structure, or district is to be defined as having historic significance and in the determination of its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A property may be historic if it is old enough to be considered historic (generally considered to be at least 50 years old and appearing the way it did in the past). Both a cultural records search and a cultural resource pedestrian survey were conducted for the proposed project. 12 The cultural resources records search was conducted on July 21, 2015, and completed at the Eastern Information Center (EIC). This record search 12 Cultural Resources Technical Report Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR. Inc, December

30 included the identification of previous cultural resource projects and resources located within the project area, as well as within a half mile buffer around the project area. Results of the EIC records search indicated that there are two known archaeological resources and five historic resources within one-half mile of the project site. No cultural resources were identified within the project area by the EIC record search. During the cultural resource survey conducted on July 24, 2015, one resource was identified and recorded as HDR-001 within the project site. Resource HDR-001 is a section of Indiana Avenue that represents its original alignment. This represents a small section of the road that was abandoned and realigned sometime after This section of Indiana Avenue is not a contributing resource to area s history of transportation or to its community planning efforts under Criterion A. The history of the area suggests that this abandoned section of Indiana Avenue is not associated with any significant historic persons and is not significant under Criterion B. This abandoned section of road has no character defining features and its design and scale are standard for two-lane surface roads in the area. Its scale, function, and location indicate it was not distinguished by its construction and does not represent the work of a master. Therefore, it is not significant under Criterion C. This section of the road is unlikely to yield information important to the past, and so it is not significant under Criterion D. Alterations to this section of Indiana Avenue after 1948 include paving and striping. Integrity of location is intact, but the setting and association has been destroyed. Modifications to the road and road abandonment have left the road in poor condition and it lacks integrity. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the CRHR or the NRHP, either individually or as a contributing resource to Indiana Avenue. As previously mentioned, two pre-recorded archaeological sites and five historic sites are located outside of the project site (the closest is about 1000 feet south of the project site) and will not be impacted by the project. The parcel contains various pieces of refuse, including various examples of building materials. The building material are not of historic significance and do not require recordation. Although, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines or an identified tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC , there is a potential for project-related construction to impact unknown or previously unrecorded archaeological resources. For this reason, Mitigation Measure CUL-01 is proposed in the event that cultural resources are inadvertently encountered during excavation activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-01 would reduce the potential impact associated with archaeological and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? Less Than with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 4.5(a). c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains of extinct organisms, and provide the only direct evidence of 28

31 ancient life. They are considered to be non-renewable resources because they cannot be replaced once they are destroyed. In general, surface disturbing activities such as grading and excavation have the potential to cause adverse effects on surface and subsurface paleontological resources. Direct impacts include destruction due to breakage and fragmentation. Indirect impacts may result from increased accessibility to paleontological resources resulting in an increased likelihood of looting or vandalism. A paleontological records and literature search were conducted for the proposed project. 13 The paleontological resources records search was completed at the San Bernardino Museum County Museum. This record search included the identification of previous resources located within the project area, as well as within a ten mile buffer around the project area. Results of the records search indicated that there are five fossil localities within a ten mile radius. However, there were no records of fossils within the project site or within one mile of the project site. Based on the type of the sediments occurring within the project site and the anticipated depth of excavation, paleontological sensitivity is low to moderate. It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources. However, the potential for the discovery of such resources cannot be completely discounted. For this reason, Mitigation Measure CUL-02 has been identified in the unlikely event that fossil resources are encountered during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-02 would reduce impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Less Than with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52) took effect on July 1, AB 52 requires a lead agency to make best efforts to avoid, preserve, and protect tribal cultural resources. The bill states that tribal cultural resources are: 1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either (i) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or included in a local register of historical resources; 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section (c); 3) A cultural landscape that meets one of the criteria of 1), above, and is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape; and/or 4) A historical resource described in PRC , a unique archaeological resource described in PRC (g), or a non-unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC 21083(h) if it conforms with the criteria of 1), above. A sacred lands record search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 3, 2015 to identify all California Native American tribes (as defined in Section of the Public Resources Code) that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site. The NAHC responded on August 25, 13 Paleontological Resources Technical Report for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside County, California, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., October

32 2015 that there were no known sacred sites within the project area. The NAHC recommended contacting forty two Native American individuals and or tribes indigenous to the surrounding area. A letter to each of the forty four contacts representing twenty three different tribes was sent out on September 2, 2015 requesting any information on heritage resources. The letters were followed up by phone and by on several occasions over a two month period thereafter. Based on the analysis as documented in the Cultural Resources Report prepared for the project, no tribal cultural resources fitting the definition above were identified. In addition, the NAHC did not indicate the presence of Native American resources in the immediate project area and no tribal cultural resources have been identified within the project area by the representatives contacted. Prior to the release of the CEQA document for a project, AB 52 requires the lead agency to initiate consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation. As of the date of this document, one California Native Tribe identified by the NAHC as potentially having knowledge of the project area (Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians) has requested that RCTC inform them of projects in the geographic area of the project. A letter notifying the tribe of the project was sent by RCTC to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians on November 5, The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians requested consultation under AB 52, of which RCTC has since initiated. A phone call to discuss the tribe s concerns was held on November 20, 2015 between RCTC and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians followed up by a field site visit with the tribe and RCTC on December 2, During the field visit to the project area the tribe expressed concerns about the grading of the soil in the southern portion of the project site that may disturb and/or unearth cultural artifacts currently buried under the alignment of the historic road or the soil built up around the road. Specifically, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians are concerned the project site is in the general vicinity of village sites and may be in the vicinity of a trade route, due to the proximity of the current railroad to the project site. Although the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines or an identified tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC , there is a potential for project-related grading/excavation activities to impact unknown or previously unrecorded archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-01 requires tribal monitoring during grading/excavation activities and a stop-work provision to ensure protection of any inadvertently discovered archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources during construction of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-01 would reduce the potential for impacting archaeological and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level by including provisions for the monitoring, discovery and treatment of such resources. As identified in Appendix D, AB52 consultation has concluded between RCTC and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians on December 17,

33 e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than. There are no known burial sites or other cultural sites that may contain human remains located within the project site. Due to the lack of any indication of a formal cemetery or informal family burial plots on-site, the proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on known human remains. However, if human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors shall immediately stop all activities in the immediate area of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and RCTC. The coroner would be permitted to examine the remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the coroner would notify the NAHC to identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Despite the affiliation of any Native American representatives at the site, the NAHC s identification of the MLD would stand. The MLD shall be granted access to inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to RCTC means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains would be determined in consultation with RCTC and the MLD. RCTC would be responsible for the final decision, based upon input from the various stakeholders. If the human remains are determined to be other than Native American in origin, but still of archaeological value, the remains would be recovered for analysis and subject to curation or reburial at the expense of RCTC. If deemed appropriate, the remains would be recovered by the coroner and handled through the Coroner s Office. Coordination with the Coroner s Office would be through RCTC and in consultation with the various stakeholders. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials would be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations would be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings shall be filed with the EIC. Adherence to State Health and Safety Code Section would reduce impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES CUL-01 RCTC shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to provide monitoring services during grading and excavation activities of project construction. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during grading/excavation activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, as approved by RCTC, is able to assess the significance of the find. If a find is determined to be significant, RCTC and the archaeologist, in consultation with Native American representatives, will meet to determine appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Such measure may include but not be limited to avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data 31

34 recovery, or other appropriate measures. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. CUL-02 If previously unidentified paleontological resources are unearthed during excavation activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist, approved by RCTC, is able to assess the significance of the find. If a find is determined to be significant, RCTC and the paleontologist will determine appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant fossil materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No. The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and there are no active faults located on or adjacent to the project site. 14 No impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than. The project site is located in seismically-active Riverside County. According to the City s General Plan Safety Element, the City is particularly susceptible to geologic hazards such as earthquakes and secondary hazards due to the proximity of major faults and the soil composition within the region. The project site has been and will continue to be directly affected by seismic activity to some degree; however, no habitable structures would be constructed as part of the project that would be susceptible to secondary hazards that may impact local residents. The construction of the restroom facility would adhere to standard building codes which take into account seismic conditions. Given that active faults are not adjacent to the project site, it can be concluded that the project site would not be affected by ground shaking more than any other area in seismically active Southern California. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 14 Figure PS-1: Regional Fault Zones, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November

35 Less Than. Liquefaction is the sudden and temporary loss of soil strength when sandy, unconsolidated soils/sediments with fine grain characteristics, loose consistency and low confining pressure, saturated by groundwater within 50 feet of the surface are subjected to strong ground shaking or dynamic loading. Liquefaction is also associated with lateral spreading, excessive settlement, and failure of shallow bearing foundations. The project site is identified as having a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction. 15 No habitable structures would be constructed as part of the proposed project; however, proposed improvements (e.g., worker restroom, information kiosk, storage shed) could be at risk from seismic-related ground failure. The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the California Building Code (CBC), which includes specifications for site preparation, such as compaction requirements for foundations. Compliance with these standards would reduce impacts associated with liquefaction to a less than significant level. iv) Landslides? No. The proposed project site is located on flat topography and is not identified as being within an area susceptible to landslides. 16 No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than. Construction of the proposed project would include the removal of limited existing vegetation from the project site, which would expose soil to wind or water erosion temporarily. To minimize erosion during construction, requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which prescribe erosion/sediment control, would reduce impacts associated with soil erosion to a less than significant level during construction. After construction concludes, the area will be paved and reestablished with landscaping that will further reduce erosion impacts during operation of the proposed project. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than. Land subsidence is the lowering of the land-surface elevation from activities occurring underground. Typical activities include oil, gas, or water extraction, hydrocompaction (soil compaction under it s own weight), and earthquakes. The project site is generally topographically flat and would not be subject to landslides, but the potential for liquefaction if moderate to high. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction induced lateral spreading is also moderate to high. The proposed project would be designed and constructed with adequate foundations and bedding in accordance with the CBC and standard engineering practices to address the possible effects of unstable soils. No significant geologic hazards to the proposed project from landslide, lateral spreading, 15 Figure PS-2: Liquefaction Zones, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November Figure PS-7: Fire Hazard Areas, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November

36 subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would occur. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? No. The project area is not identified as containing expansive soils. 17 No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No. The proposed restroom facility would be connected to the City s existing sewer system. Therefore, the project does not include buildings that require septic tanks or the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than. Emissions of Greenhouse gasses (GHG s) contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential and agricultural uses. About three quarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to the burning of fossil fuel. While an individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence Global Climate Change (GCC), individual projects can incrementally contribute to the potential for the cumulative emissions driving GCC. The purpose of this analysis is to analyze whether the project s contributions combined with emissions from all other past, present, and probable future projects contribute to the potential for GCC on a cumulative basis and whether the project s contribution to the impact is cumulatively considerable. The City of Riverside has not adopted a GHG reduction plan, as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section (b), which would apply to the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. The City will establish goals for GHG emission reductions in the Climate Plan when it is completed and adopted. Projects within the City subject to environmental review will refer to the Climate Plan, if adopted, to ensure consistency in long-term planning. However, since the Climate Plan is not adopted at this time, this analysis relies on the Air Resources Board (ARB) guidance on analyzing GHG 17 Figure PS-3: Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November

37 emissions. The ARB has published draft preliminary guidance to agencies on how to establish interim significance thresholds for analyzing GHG emissions called Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed guidance generally describes three classes of common projects: industrial, commercial, and residential projects. For each type of project, the proposed draft guidance recommends that a two-pronged threshold be employed, one performance-based and one numerical. For performance standards, the draft guidance suggests that operations and construction of a project be evaluated for their consistency with applicable performance standards contained in plans designed to reduce GHG emissions and/or help meet the State s emission reduction objectives in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The proposed draft guidance contains two numerical standards. First, the proposed draft guidance states that some residential and commercial projects, emitting 1,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 E) per year or less, would clearly not interfere with achieving the State s emission reduction objectives in AB32 (and Executive Order [EO] S-03-05) and thus, may be deemed categorically exempt from CEQA. Under this approach, projects emitting less than 1,600 metric tons of CO 2 E per year would not require further analysis. Second for industrial projects, the proposed draft guidance proposed that projects that emit less than 7,000 metric tons of CO 2 E per year may be considered less than significant, recognizing that AB32 will continue to reduce or mitigate emissions from these types of projects over time. As previously stated, the City does not have a Climate Plan adopted at this time; therefore, this analysis relies on the ARB s guidance on analyzing GHG emissions. Consistent with the thresholds of significance identified in the ARB s guidance for the project, a significant impact could result in the project would contribute to a long-term ongoing increase in GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, a long-term ongoing increase in GHG emissions is considered to be an annual amortized increase in GHG emissions that exceeds 1,600 metric of CO 2 E. Overall, the following activities associated with the project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: Construction Activities: During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). Electricity Use: Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuels. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generated during construction and operation of the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy for transporting and managing the waste which project additional GHGs. Motor Vehicle Use: Transportation associated with the proposed project would 35

38 result in GHG emissions from fuel combustion in daily automobile and bus trips. CO 2 is the most significant GHG emitted by vehicles, but lesser amounts of CH 4 and N 2 O are also emitted in vehicle exhaust. GHG emissions are typically measured in pounds or tons of CO 2 E. CO 2 E is a quantity that describes, for a given GHG, the amount of CO 2 that would have the same global warming potential when measure over a specific time scale. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. GHG emissions generated by construction of the project would predominantly consist of CO 2. The modeling conducted for the construction analysis shows that emissions of CO 2 E would be as high 180 metric tons during project construction, which is below the threshold of 1,600 metric tons cited in ARB s guidance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to generate 422 metric tons of CO 2 E per year. The GHG emissions anticipated to be generated during construction and operation of the project would not exceed the screening level thresholds established by the ARB. Therefore, impacts associated with direct and indirect generation of GHGs and consistency with applicable plans adopted for reducing GHGs do not require further study and are less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No. As discussed above, the proposed project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation available to date for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Implementation of the project would not interfere or conflict with the State s objectives of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments would be present during project construction. These materials include diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the project. However, the project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and City of Riverside Municipal Code regulations which regulate and control those materials handled 36

39 on-site. Compliance with these regulations and standards ensure that potentially significant impacts would not occur. In the unlikely event of a spill, fuels would be controlled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This impact is considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Less Than. Operation of the project would not require use of hazardous materials; therefore, no hazards or hazardous materials impacts related to the long term operation of the project are anticipated. Construction activities would include the use of limited quantities of ordinary equipment fuels and fluids. However, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. Such materials would be kept at construction staging areas and would be secured when not in use. In the unlikely event of a spill, fuels would be controlled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. s are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No. The nearest school to the project site is Arizona Intermediate School which is located approximately 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) south of the project site. Therefore, accidents involving hazardous emissions or materials associated with the project would not impact any adjacent school. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No. The project site is not located on any hazardous materials site as designated by Government Code Section , and there is no opportunity to create a significant hazard to the public or environment. 18 No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No. The closest public/public use airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the proposed project. The project site is located outside of the airport influence area boundary for the Riverside Municipal Airport Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR, Inc., September Map RI-1 Compatibility Map for Riverside Municipal Airport, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Background Data, Volume 2 West County Airports, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, adopted 37

40 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people in the project area. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons to airport-related hazards. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the City of Riverside s Emergency Operations Plan, which addresses extraordinary emergency situations. All emergency procedures would be consistent with local, State, and Federal guidelines during the construction and operation of the project. Therefore, no impact is identified and no mitigation is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No. The project site does not fall into an area characterized as either (1) a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risk and hazard, or (2) very high fire hazard severity zone. 20 In addition, the project site is surrounding on all sides by urban development. Therefore, the development and operation of the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. March Figure PS-7 Fire Hazard Areas, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside Community Development Department, November

41 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than. Construction activities require the use of gasoline and dieselpowered heavy equipment, such as a bulldozer, backhoe, bobcat, and small pickup trucks. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances could be utilized during construction. Construction activities could promote soil erosion discharging sediment to adjacent drainages. Sedimentation would degrade the water quality of the receiving waters. Materials associated with construction equipment such as fuels, oils, antifreeze, coolants, and other substances could adversely affect water quality if inadvertently released to surface waters. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water quality of the surface water runoff and add pollution into local waterways. The most likely runoff constituent of concern from the project site would be from sediment created by soil disturbance during or immediately after construction. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permitting program regulates storm water quality from construction sites. RCTC would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for coverage under the Statewide storm water discharge NPDES permit. The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list any best management practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program. Specific BMPs that may be applicable would include establishment of sediment basins and erosion control perimeter around active construction and contractor layout areas, silt fencing, jute netting, straw waddles, or other appropriate measures to control sediment from leaving the construction area. These temporary features serve to trap and absorb pollutants and sediments before they can leave the area. Construction contractors would be made aware of the required BMPs and good housekeeping measures for the project site and associated construction staging areas. Construction debris and waste materials would be collected at the end of each day and properly disposed in trash or recycle bins. For this project, implementation of standard BMPs will adequately protect against both typical and accidental discharges. During operation of the project, stormwater from the site would be routed to adjoining drainage areas. The increase in pervious surface would be a relatively small amount, which would not result in a significant or substantial change in runoff quality. With the implementation of standard BMPs during construction and operation of the proposed project, impacts to water quality are anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- 39

42 existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No. The project does not propose to use groundwater resources or to otherwise affect any groundwater resources that are used for water supply. In addition, the proposed project is not located in an area identified for groundwater recharge. As such, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than. Although some grading would be required for the construction of the proposed project, the drainage pattern of the site would not be significantly changed. The drainage system proposed for the project would not alter flows within the project site that would increase the risk of on- or off-site flooding. In addition, erosion and sedimentation resulting from landscaping and maintenance would be controlled through the implementation of required BMPs. The project would not result in a significant change in drainage patterns. s associated with this issue are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding onor off-site? Less Than. The proposed project would be required to comply with City of Riverside regulations and the requirements of the Phase II General Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit for managing stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or manner of surface runoff, which would result in flooding on- or off-site. During construction, BMPs would be implemented, consistent with the permit, so that surface runoff would be controlled to the extent practicable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than. Please refer to Response 4.9(d). f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than. Please refer to Response 4.9(a). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 40

43 No. The proposed project would result in the construction of a parking lot with supporting infrastructure. No housing is proposed as part of the project and the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. 21 The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal flood hazard map. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No. As previously stated, the project site is not identified as being within a 100- year flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the placement of structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No. The project is not located in an area of a levee or dam. 22 No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No. The project site is not located near an ocean coast that could produce a tsunami, a body of water that could produce a seiche, or steep slopes that could create a mudflow. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. 21 Figure PS-4: Flood Hazard Areas, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November Figure PS-4 Flood Hazard Areas, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November

44 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No. According to the City of Riverside General Plan, the project site has a land use designation of Mixed Use - Urban. 23 The project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project would not conflict with applicable City of Riverside land use designations or zoning standards and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation with jurisdiction over the project. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No. Refer to Response 4.4(f). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No. There are no mineral, oil or energy extraction and/or generation activities within the project area or in the immediate area. The resources and materials that would be used to construct the project will not include any materials that are considered to be rare or unique. In addition, the project site is not designated in the City of Riverside s General Plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. 24 Therefore, no impact is anticipated to occur with implementation of the project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No. Refer to Response 4.11(a). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 23 Figure LU-10 Land Use Policy Map, Land Use and Urban Design Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November Figure OS-1: Mineral Resources, Open Space and Conservation Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November

45 4.12 NOISE a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than. The City of Riverside Municipal Code, Chapter 7.35 General Noise Regulations regulates noise emitted from construction activities through the placement of time restrictions. The City Noise Ordinance also addresses long-term interior and exterior noise impacts caused by traffic and other sources. Construction of the proposed project would be a source of temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels that could be audible to nearby sensitive receptors during the construction of the project. The mix of equipment operating on-site would vary depending on the activity being conducted, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. As required in Chapter 7.35 of the City of Riverside Municipal Code, construction activities would be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and the use of mufflers or sound dissipative devices for internal combustion engines is required during construction to reduce noise levels associated with construction activities. Construction of the proposed project would be required to adhere to these noise requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operation of the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, since no significant vehicular traffic or other operational noise would be generated during the operation of the project. Accordingly, the proposed project would not contribute to a permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing conditions. The impact is considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than. Construction of the proposed project would generally include conventional construction activities, including excavation, grading, site preparation, and trail construction. A temporary increase in noise levels would result from construction activities. However, development of the proposed project would not result in excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels. There may be relatively minor vibrations from the use of trucks or other equipment during construction activities such as excavation. However, this ground borne condition from such equipment would be relatively minor, intermittent, short-term, and restricted to daytime hours. Additionally, noise sensitive receptors are not located in the immediate vicinity of the construction areas. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than. Please refer to Response 4.12(a). 43

46 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than. Please refer to Response 4.12(a). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public/public use airport to the project site is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new parking area and other supporting improvements. The project site is currently vacant and new homes or businesses are not proposed. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the displacement of any existing housing or people. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area. Therefore, no impacts related to direct or indirect population growth would occur with the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No. Please refer to Response 4.13(a). 44

47 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No. Please refer to Response 4.13(a). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? No. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The proposed improvements would not include housing units or result in an increase in population within the area. Therefore, there would be no increase in demand for fire or police protection services and no need for new or expanded fire or police services. In addition, proposed improvement would be located within an existing urban area adjacent to the existing Metrolink Station, which is clearly marked and signed to aid in access and timely response in medical emergencies. Therefore, no impacts to fire or police protection are anticipated and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Police protection? No. Refer to Checklist 4.14(a). c) Schools? No. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The proposed project does not include housing units or other development that would increase the population or the number of students enrolled in schools within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand for school services or other public facilities or result in the need for additional or altered facilities. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. d) Parks? No. The proposed project would expand an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase to the area that would require or use additional parks or existing recreational facilities. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. 45

48 e) Other public facilities? No. As previously indicated, the proposed project would not increase the local population. Therefore, the proposed project would not create additional demand for local library and medical services and facilities in the area. In addition, no other new governmental services would be needed and the proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on existing governmental services. No impact is anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No. Refer to Response 4.14(d). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No. Refer to Response 4.14(d). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, street, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated. A small increase in traffic would occur in the project area during the construction phase of the proposed project from construction vehicles and construction workers accessing the site. However, these impacts would be short-term, occurring only during the construction period and are not expected to exceed a level of service standard for roads or highways in the City. During operation of the project, trips to the site would primarily consist of transit commuters 46

49 accessing public transit options. Riverside Transit Agency buses would also access the site as a stop on select bus routes. The City of Riverside considers a Level of Service (LOS) D as the minimum acceptable LOS to be used for all City intersections and roadways of Collector or higher classification. The City considers a significant impact to occur if a location that is forecast to operate at LOS D or better in without project conditions exceeds LOS D in with project conditions. A total of 7 intersections were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the project, the proposed project is forecast to generate 19 new a.m. peak hour trips and 237 new p.m. peak hour trips. 25 All of the study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection (LOS E) during the p.m. peak hour. During opening year (2016) without project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection (LOS E) during p.m. peak hour. The La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection also is anticipated to operate at 62.1 seconds of delay. With the addition of the project in opening year (2016), the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection is projected to operate at an LOS F and 59.4 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. Based on the City of Riverside s traffic impact threshold of significance, an impact is identified when a project results in an unsatisfactory LOS E or F and adds more than 2 seconds of delay to an intersection. Implementation of improvements at the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection as described in Mitigation Measure TRAF-01 would result in an improvement of seconds of delay at the impacted intersection. In addition, as part of the project design features, a new signal at the access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue will be installed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-01 and the proposed traffic signal would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Checklist Question 4.16(a). c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No. The closest public/public use airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the proposed project. Implementation of the project would not generate air traffic, require air transportation, or change air traffic levels at the Riverside Municipal Airport. The proposed project would not create safety risks or obstructions to air navigation. No impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required. 25 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Study, Iteris, December

50 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No. The design of the proposed project would adhere to City of Riverside standards. Based on preliminary site designs, the proposed project would not increase hazards in the form of sharp curves or dangerous intersections. In addition, the proposed project is considered a compatible land use for this area. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No. The proposed project would expand an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Once completed, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. During construction activities, there could be slight delays to emergency access due to construction vehicles accessing the project site. However, construction activities would be short-term and temporary. The project s effects on emergency access would be limited to construction of the project and would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measure is required. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No. As stated previously in Section 10 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed project would be consistent with the City s General Plan. The proposed project is intended to benefit public transit users utilizing the bus and train service in the project area, thereby promoting the use of alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts on alternative transportation systems or conflicts with alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs would occur and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES TRAF-01 The following improvements shall be implemented by RCTC at the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue prior to operation of the parking lot: Restripe westbound shared through-right to dedicated right turn lane. Add a westbound right turn overlap phase UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No. Local governments and districts are responsible for complying with State and Federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e.g. sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment as impacts from 48

51 these processes can degrade water resources and affect human health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater facilities operate in compliance with water quality regulations set forth by the State. WDRs, issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants that POTWs can discharge. These permits also contain pollutant monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. The proposed project would include construction and operation of a restroom facility. The restroom facility would be connected to the existing City sewer system and treated appropriately per the WDRs issued for the POTWs in the City. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No. The proposed project would need water for dust control and cleaning during the construction phase. Water use for dust control and incidental cleaning during the construction phase would be limited and temporary. Although the proposed project does include the construction of a restroom facility, the restroom facility would only be utilized by transit workers on their bus route to and from the parking lot. This limited water need would not create a demand on existing water facilities or require the construction of a new facility. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than. The proposed project would introduce impervious surfaces in the form of a parking, curb and gutter, and other paved areas for an information kiosk, restroom facility, trash cans, and other associated improvements. However, the proposed project would develop an on-site drainage system that would capture storm water generated on site. This on-site drainage system is anticipated to be contained within the project site with no expansion of existing facilities occurring off the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on storm drain facilities and no mitigation measures are required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No. Refer to Response 4.17(a). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? No. Refer to Response 4.17(b). f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? 49

52 Less Than. Solid waste collection and disposal in the City is managed by the City of Riverside Solid Waste staff or contracted through Burrtec Waste. Waste collected in the City is deposited at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill located at Ironwood Avenue in the City of Moreno Valley. According to CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), the landfill is currently permitted to receive a maximum of 4,000 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 14,730,025 cubic yards. 26 Construction wastes that would be generated by the proposed project would include vegetation debris from site clearing; soil export from excavation and grading; construction wastes from signs and interpretive kiosks; and excess building materials. This one-time waste generation would be temporary and would not deplete available capacities at existing landfills. Since wastes generated during construction of the proposed project would be handled and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations, impacts on landfill capacity would be limited and temporary and are considered less than significant. No conflict with solid waste regulations would occur. Long term-waste generation would be limited to organic wastes from landscape maintenance from landscaped areas and from trash cans provided throughout the parking lot area. This would not result in any significant waste generation that would require additional landfill capacity. s would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than. Refer to Response 4.17(f). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 26 Facility/Site Summary Details: Badlands Sanitary Landfill (SS-AA-0006), CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System, site accessed November 3,

53 SECTION 5 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project has the potential to impact sensitive biological resources, including migratory birds and burrowing owl; however, mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. After mitigation, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; and would not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plants or animals. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, impacts on human remains would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations. s on archaeological, paleontological, and tribal resources would be minimized or avoided through implementation of mitigation measures during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities. s would be less than significant after mitigation. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Implementation of the mitigation measures for biological and cultural resources and compliance with existing regulations on the disposition of human remains that may be found during excavation would result in less than significant impacts. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than. The proposed project will not generate any impacts that are individually limited, but will become cumulatively considerable. There a r e no development plans being considered with the proposed project at this time. The impacts of the proposed project would be limited in both intensity and scope due to the relatively small size and the type of improvements proposed. Because project impacts would be less than significant after mitigation, impacts associated with the proposed project are not expected to result in cumulatively considerable impacts when added to the impacts of other projects planned or proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 51

54 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than. Project construction and operation would not have the potential to generate significant adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly with the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, potential environmental impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 52

55 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES Albert A. Webb Associates, City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents EIR, November California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Riverside County Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, site accessed November 2, CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System, Facility/Site Summary Details: Badlands Sanitary Landfill (SS-AA-0006), site accessed November 3, City of Riverside, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, amended November City of Riverside, Zoning Map of the City of Riverside, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., Paleontological Resources Technical Report for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside County, California, October HDR, Inc., Cultural Resources Technical Report Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project, December HDR, Inc., Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, September HDR, Inc., MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, August Iteris, La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Study, December Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Background Data, Volume 2 West County Airports, adopted March

56 ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES Attachments Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Regional Location Project Location Map Conceptual Site Plan Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Project Plan Set MSHCP Consistency Analysis Cultural Resources Technical Report AB52 Documentation Paleontological Resources Technical Report Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review Traffic Study

57 Regional Location Figure 1

58 Project Location Map Figure 2

59 Conceptual Site Plan Figure 3